Business of the House

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

Historically the UK has had slower social mobility over many decades; that is improving, but there is more that needs to be done in this area. That will only be helped by people being able to get into work and make progress through work. That is why I supported our reforms on universal credit and why I think we should be celebrating getting 4 million people into work, there being 1 million fewer workless households, and 1 million of that 4 million being disabled people who would not have had the dignity of a pay packet had we not brought in those reforms. Focusing on opportunities for young people, we should celebrate our emphasis on alternative routes other than pure, traditional university degrees: apprenticeships and ensuring that young people are in education, employment and training.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It has been a very stressful week for parents worried about their children returning to schools and whether they are safe. Now I understand that the list produced by the Department is inaccurate and that some schools have been told that they should close yet they are not on the list. I remember the confusion, chaos and further distress that was also caused when the Building Schools for the Future list went out. This affects all our constituents, so it is not a party issue. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House ensured that the information the Department for Education sends to all our constituents is clear on what is happening with the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete issue across the country.

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. If we want to reduce the stress levels that people are undergoing, we must ensure that information is timely and accurate. I know that that is what the Secretary of State for Education is looking to achieve. I will raise this with the Department and ensure that the list, if there are errors on it, is dealt with. I will also ask for a point of contact for Members, if they have not already been issued one. In situations such as this, it is important to be able to get hold of someone to confirm whether something is accurate, or when local issues crop up that need to be resolved quickly. I shall certainly recommend that the Secretary of State does that. I know that she wants to ensure that Members have answers to questions they want to raise and that her Department is delivering a good service to this House.

Business of the House

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I suggest that securing record-breaking and historic levels of investment from both the public purse and the private sector should be a starter for 10 for the work the Secretary of State is doing. I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Government have spent rather a lot of money and time on preparing for independence, which was not the outcome of the referendum that was held. I also suggest that if he wants to preach prudence, he might like to talk to the SNP local authority that this week seems to have decided its main mission is not the emptying of bins or sorting out education, but actually trying to ban bouncy castles.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I recently spoke with my Action Greater Bedminster constituents about the benefits of new housing supply in south Bristol. Our Labour council is building more homes for the future, including a heat network to tackle emissions and costs, and social housing. I welcome the Backbench Business debate that the Leader of the House announced for 5 June, but people’s biggest concern in relation to building new homes is access to primary care and GP services. Before that debate, can she make sure she talks to her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to come forward with answers and a plan to make sure we build homes for the future with GP access?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Lady’s question has been highly efficient. She has saved me the trouble of a stamp, as the Health team are on the Front Bench. There will be two statements today on health, which she might like to attend. I hope she will be pleased with what the Secretary of State says.

Business of the House

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that incredibly important and timely issue. I encourage all hon. Members to promote the Time to Talk campaign. She will know that we have had recent announcements on additional mental health support. It is incredibly important that interventions are there early, because that can often mean the difference between someone being able to recover and manage the issues they are facing or heading into a decline, with ever more serious interventions needed further down the track. I encourage everyone to take part in the campaign, and I will ensure that the call for a debate has been heard by the Department of Health and Social Care .

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I take my responsibilities on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee seriously in scrutinising the Cabinet Office. I was pleased to have had a question listed this morning on value for money and procurement, but I was disappointed that the Cabinet Office withdrew it and changed the answering Department. It was entirely within its rights to do so, but it has answered similar questions before. Will the Leader of the House, as the Commons’ voice in the Cabinet, ensure that her colleagues respect this place, understand that hon. Members, particularly members of Select Committees, should be able to table questions to be debated in this place, and stop the habit of denying answers?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am sorry to hear that. If the hon. Lady will give me all the information, I will follow it up with the Department on her behalf.

Standards: Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do support the motion—I will vote for the motion, should there be a Division. I will also vote for the amendments tabled by the Committee, and I will come on to the reasons why shortly. I just want to make sure we are clear about the backdrop. A Government did ask their MPs to support the indefensible and to vote for what appeared to be nonsense.

The farce, unfortunately, continued the very next day. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset undermined himself still further by reversing the impact of the amendment, which had passed thanks to his Government’s own urging. I will not go over that in detail, but it is worth noting that it created a mess in the middle of the ongoing process. It meant that an MP then resigned rather than working with the system of standards, as the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire said, with the good intention of attempting to strengthen and improve the system.

By this point, the Committee on Standards had already begun its work and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had announced her review of the code of conduct to complement the Committee’s activities. I am glad the Government have brought forward some of the Committee’s recommendations. It is already Labour policy that MPs should not be paid parliamentary lobbyists or consultants on how to get better access to Parliament and Government. Where MPs do have an outside job, it is right that strict protocols are followed, so I welcome the measure that will require them to have a written contract making it explicit that their duties cannot include lobbying Ministers. I am glad that has Government support. A Labour Government would go further and ban second jobs altogether, with limited exceptions.

I note the commendable work of the right hon. Sir Ernest Ryder, who conducted the independent review into the system. The Committee made good use of his extensive experience and reflections on the very important issues of fairness, natural justice and the right to appeal. Unfortunately, some Members, in their attempts to defend their friend—an urge I completely understand; to defend one’s friends is a good quality—attacked the system on the grounds of fairness, natural justice and the right to appeal. They were exposed further on when Sir Ernest Ryder concluded that the present inquisitorial procedure for standards inquiries is fair and complies with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, or the right to a fair trial. He made further recommendations, including introducing a more formal appeal stage to the process, while noting that the existing standards process contained such a right, but that it was not clearly identified. I welcome both his and the Committee’s recommendations.

However, the Government have ditched some key reforms. I note what the Leader of the House says, and I do not doubt that her intentions are honourable. I am glad to hear her say that more things are coming. I think she will recognise, however, that I am growing rather weary of hearing the word “soon”. That does not just come from her—she is not the only one. In fact, I do not think she did say “soon” this evening. But if it is not soon, then when? The Government have had the recommendations for some months. Given the backdrop I have outlined, on what basis does the Leader of the House think there is a moral basis for picking and choosing which of the standards they will accept and which ones to ditch? They appear to be ignoring that backdrop.

The first specific issue I want to mention is the register of ministerial interests and the measures, which have been raised briefly already, requiring Ministers to register gifts and hospitality in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The history is fascinating. A 1993 report from the Select Committee on Members’ Interests stated that Ministers were required to register benefits they received in just the same way as other Members, even if it was in a ministerial capacity. Subsequently, the 1997 ministerial code provided that Ministers should register hospitality in their capacity as a Minister in the House if it was

“on a scale or from a source which might reasonably be thought likely to influence Ministerial action”.

The 2007 ministerial code went even further, providing that Ministers should register hospitality with both the permanent secretary in their Department and the House.

Only in 2010 did the ministerial code completely separate the registering of ministerial and Member interests. It is worth noting that there was a change of Government that year, and it feels to me as though the subsequent amendment in 2015, with the then Government introducing the provision that

“Members are not required to register either Ministerial office or benefits received in their capacity as a Minister”

was a step backwards. I would like us to have transparency, with Ministers registering all hospitality above a certain agreed level with the House so that there is parity with Members, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda will explain in more detail. However, I feel this is an opportunity for the Leader of the House just to reconsider. Will she do so? The Government have had months to respond to these proposals, and I am really disappointed to see them thus weakened.

My second criticism is about the examples of the principles of public life. The right hon. Lady the Leader of the House referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, so she must know that the chair of the committee said in oral evidence to the Committee:

“We strongly support the idea that although the seven principles remain central and important for standards issues right across the public realm, they need to be interpreted for particular institutions and organisations.”

Are we not a particular institution or organisation? We are. He also pointed out that

“the civil service code…takes the same sort of direction…but identifies specific priorities and principles that are relevant to the civil service”,

so why not Parliament?

Does the Leader of the House agree that MPs should not misuse our position to gain financial or other material benefit? If so, the Government should not be nervous of making the principles of public life specific to our profession, as the Committee has recommended. In particular, I wonder about the weakening of the example given by the Committee on leadership. What, I ask, have the Government got against the recommendation that Members

“should actively promote and robustly support the principles, abide by the Parliamentary Behaviour Code”,

and what have they got against the recommendation that we

“should refrain from any action which would bring Parliament or its Members into disrepute”?

Surely that is something the Government should support.

The other part of the backdrop is the loss of two independent ethics advisers in a matter of months. I will not take up too much of the House’s time on this point, but I do want the right hon. Lady the Leader of the House to convey to the rest of the Government our dismay that, week after week, when I or my colleagues ask when we are going to get an ethics adviser, the answer is always “soon”. I am sure the right hon. Lady wants to give us something clearer than “soon” soon.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I asked the Minister in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee what “soon” meant. There was an offer—given that the previous ethics adviser resigned shortly after giving evidence to our Committee—of a private session about the process, but the Minister said that there would not be time, as it would come very soon. If the offer still stands, we could work with the Government to try to expedite the process.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I can only echo my hon. Friend’s call to the right hon. Lady to give us some more clarity on what “soon” actually means.

The new Prime Minister’s reference to previous Governments was to show that he would bring in a new professionalism, and so on and so forth, but this is exactly the same cast: there has just been another round of ring-a-ring o’ roses, and one of them tumbled into the middle to become Prime Minister. In this brave new world, their dictionary proclaims that “soon” means “as far down the road as we can kick this without actually having to deal with it”. The word “soon” is an important one to define when it relates to such important constitutional matters, and to transparency, ethics and integrity. We know that ethics matter and standards matter, and they matter whether or not the demonstrator on Parliament Square is calling for them—in fact, all the more so—because I am afraid that this lot skipping ring-a-ring o’ roses around successively failing Prime Ministers has cast such a long shadow on ethics that the Parliament Square demonstrator thinks everyone here is just as bad and that none of us can be trusted. That should shame the Governments responsible for it, because Members are subject to rules and standards. There are systems: there is a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards who investigates fairly and there is a Standards Committee that goes on to do likewise. Those checks and processes are designed to hold us all to account and ensure appropriate consequences if we fail. The vast majority of Members register their interests properly.

Business of the House

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was an urgent question on this matter last Thursday. The particular incident to which he refers was thoroughly debated at that time. We are blessed in this country with some of the finest security services, which keep us safe on a regular basis. I know that all Ministers will want to make sure that their own security and that of the nation is paramount in their minds.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

On Tuesday, Sir John Major appeared before the Public Administration Constitutional Affairs Committee. I asked him about the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill with regards to breaking the law. He said:

“If it is breaking the law, it ought not to happen. You cannot be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker. That is an absolutely flat line. If they are breaking the law, the Attorney-General should be in there saying, ‘This is not legal.’”

I pressed him further, saying, given the Government’s majority, where does Parliament go from here if it passes. He said:

“Parliament ought to see unexpurgated the advice from the Law Officers as to whether it does break the law at home or internationally. If it does not, it is a matter for Parliament. If it does break the law, it is a Bill that ought not to be laid before the House of Commons.”

The Leader of the House is our spokesperson—our person to the Government. It is his duty to be the voice of Parliament. Has he seen the legal advice himself? If so, is he satisfied that Bill does not break the law, or, if not, will he seek to withdraw the Bill?

[Mark Spencer]

I can give the hon. Lady good news: the Bill does not break the law. The Attorney General has been clear on that. Legal advice of that nature is not published, but the Attorney General has ruled that it does not break the law and I think that is good news.

Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. We do not have to be expert builders to see that this is going to cost money and it is going to take time. I see no alternative to both Houses having to move out for a period of time, as yet undetermined.

I also say in response to my right hon. Friend that this shows the critical role of the Commons Finance Committee, the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, chaired so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), and the Public Accounts Committee, which has done such excellent work. Members of the PAC are here today and are very knowledgeable and skilled at exactly that sort of line by line scrutiny. We would need that whoever was commissioning the works—whether it was the Sponsor Body, and both Committees have paid close attention to the current structure, or any future structure.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

In 2015, I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). On that basis, I went to see the works and the operations of this building. It is still remarkable to me that we keep the entire thing going. My hon. Friend, the shadow Leader of the House, mentioned people who work here and their expertise. Is she confident that account has been taken of their judgment about the way they can continue to operate the building while this procrastination goes on and that we can support them in the difficult work that they do?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is right to raise it and to pay tribute to the work of the Public Accounts Committee. Am I confident? I am not currently confident or certain of where we are at the moment in terms of delivering anything in the way that we wanted to, but I am confident that we need to do it. Having spoken to the Delivery Authority, I am confident that it views this as doable, and it is the authority that will be carrying out the work. Having reviewed the situation, the Independent Expert Panel noted:

“in principle the existing governance model could be made to work, but that lost confidence and momentum means that retaining the current model is unlikely to work.”

What it has also said, which might speak to my hon. Friend’s question, is that the recommendation of bringing the Sponsor Body function in-house should be viewed as a pragmatic measure to cover what is needed for the next 12 to 24 months—the decision phase if you like. It has also recommended that that pragmatism should not preclude alternative future options. We need to see this as part of a process to get us to the decision. Regrettable though it may be, and I do regret it, that we are where we are, this appears to be a compromise way of moving forward, with best value for money, safety and time.

Business of the House

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

The Great British Railways transition team is running a competition on behalf of the Department for Transport. I should be careful to tiptoe through my answer so I am not seen to be favouring one bid over another. The deadline for expressions of interest is 16 March, and I wish my hon. Friend every success in her pursuit of the Derby bid. The UK has a proud heritage in rail. The Government are embarking on the biggest investment in our railway infrastructure, with £96 billion through the integrated rail plan.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate on the planning laws that allow the conversion of offices into substandard accommodation such as the Imperial Apartments in my constituency?

[Mark Spencer]

That is an important issue. Local authorities have responsibility to ensure that landlords provide adequate accommodation for their tenants. All conversions of that nature should follow building regs and make sure that standards are upheld for their tenants.

Committee on Standards

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Where to start, Mr Speaker? There must be many a Government MP scratching their head today and asking—with reference to the greatest popstar and songwriter of all time after Schubert—“How did I get here?” I am afraid the Leader of the House still seems to have no answer to David Byrne’s eternal question; allow me to assist. I could suggest a few good books on parliamentary process, or maybe a trip to the Table Office—the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and perhaps even the Government Chief Whip could do with a bit of revision. I could point them towards some party planners in Bristol who could perhaps help them to learn the basics of how to turn some beer and some crisps into a festivity in a brewery.

When the Leader of the House opened the debate some 13 days ago on what should have been a straightforward motion to approve a Standards Committee report, like the one we now have before us, he used his lengthy speech from the Dispatch Box not really to move the motion but instead to propose a Back-Bench amendment that tore through his own motion and, more importantly, tore through the standards process right in the middle of a live case. The Leader of the House talks of conflation; as he sat down, was he fatigued? Were his fingers in his ears? I do not think so. Had he mastered the art of dozing off while appearing conscious? What explanation can there be for his plaintive lament the very next day, in the days after, and even today in his podcast, that it was a pity that the issues of changing the standards process and the live case had become conflated? It was literally him doing the conflating.

I understand that the Leader of the House might not hang on my every word, but why did he not heed the wise counsel of the Chair of the Standards Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant); of his own former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper); of the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley); and of any number of others? We all warned the Leader of the House against the dangers of conflation. He was warned, yet conflate he did. He heeded none of the warnings as he led the Prime Minister’s men and women up to the top of the hill and then left them there.

Then came the Government’s screeching U-turn, which the Leader of the House announced the next day at business questions. What followed was yet more chaos. The amended motion is still in place. The motion before us today should have gone through last night but was blocked by a single voice, for reasons that remain a mystery to me but that we may hear shortly. Now, here we are, debating this motion.

When the Leader of the House was asked at business questions how the sham Committee that was included in the messed-up motion, with a named Chair—quite inappropriate—would operate with no funding or cross-party support, I seem to recall that he waved his hands at me and tried to imply that we had not been listening to his words. But we had, and answer came there none.

Absurdly, the Government then resisted the motion suggested by my hon. Friend the Chair of the Standards Committee, as they resisted the urging from me and, no doubt, from others. They could have laid that motion there and then, last Monday, to rectify the mess that they had not just made but quite improperly whipped for, given that this is a House matter.

The motion finally appeared among the remaining orders last night, on a “nod or nothing” basis. I confess, Mr Speaker, that even I was surprised by the chaos last night, as it descended into Chamber farce. I really thought that the Government, having admitted their mistake and squirrelled away the remedy in a late-night, no-debate motion, would surely have made sure that no one was going to mess it up for them again. But oh how wrong I was. To continue the Talking Heads references, this is not my beautiful House. This Government cannot sweep this under the rug. The Leader of the House has now apologised in his podcast, but will he also apologise to the House for the damage that has been done to the reputation of Parliament by this sorry affair?

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy rightly sent an apology to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—the independent standards commissioner—for his outrageous comments when sent out on the morning media round to be the Government apologist for bad behaviour. Which hapless Minister are they going to send out next time? Will it once again be the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who was also sent out to describe all this as a

“Westminster storm in a teacup”?

If it is a Westminster storm in a teacup, it must be a very big teacup, because here we are—

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

After 13 days.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Yes, 13 days.

Mr Speaker, standards matter. Scrutiny matters. An independent system to hold everyone in public life to account matters. Standards should not be seen or treated as an irksome bother that you get your mates to change when you are found out. Standards should not be seen as something to be feared, or something to be treated with such distain, incompetence and total absence of leadership, as we have seen from this sorry Government over this sorry affair. To anyone who really loves democracy, standards are the bedrock of everything we do—everything. Once more, it seems I have to remind the Leader of the House that the Nolan principles are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and, finally, leadership.

For democracy to work—for it to be trusted—those values have to be not only integrated into our political system but celebrated and welcomed. No MP must be for hire—not one. Standards should be the guiding light of every day in this place; a frame around what we do; a filter to sift out what must not be done from what must be done; something we demand from ourselves and each other; and something we expect our staff to work to and to hold us to. When our constituents challenge us to live up to these standards, we should be proud that our democracy is working so well that they can do that. How have we got to the point where the Prime Minister has to clarify that the UK is not a corrupt country? How did we get here? How did we get here?!

Let us keep the upward trajectory, started in 1695—I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have appreciated that, or that he did appreciate that—making our standards stronger, our systems of accountability more effective, not weakening them as the Government tried to do with, I am afraid to say, the assistance of the Leader of the House. I am glad that the Leader of the House recognises that it was a mistake, but I ask him again if he will apologise to this House.

I also ask the Leader of the House: when will the Government bring forward, or respond to, the 2018 recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on MPs’ outside interests? If he has read that report, which I am sure he has, will he be backing Labour’s motion tomorrow? That motion is based on the part of the standards report on banning MPs from taking political strategy, analyst and consultancy jobs—I got the wording slightly wrong there, but, basically, we are talking about paid directorships and lobbying jobs that MPs should not be doing. The Government must accept the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was set up after a different Tory scandal, to strengthen the system. They must support the current inquiry into the MPs’ code of conduct, which our Standards Committee is in the middle of and, in fact, shortly to report on. The Government should only ever be in the business of updating and strengthening our system. We should never be content for the public to look at us wearily and conclude, thanks to the cynical actions of a very few, that we do not have standards, when we do.

Finally, we should never have been put in this position, but we were by those on the Government Benches, and now they cannot even clear up after themselves. We can now, today—and I hope that we do—end this particular sorry mess of a motion and take it off the books by voting through the one in front of us, mercifully unamended, as it should have been 13 days ago, if only the Leader of the House had been listening.

Business of the House

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Unfortunately I find myself in a degree of disagreement with my hon. Friend. I think fireworks are a little bit of harmless fun. People enjoy them, and we should not take every enjoyment out of people’s lives with endless licensing and regulation. Conservatives are meant to be cautious about excessive regulation and giving power to bureaucracies. I am afraid I am unsympathetic to his request.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate on the Government’s environmental illiteracy and the impact on people in Bristol South and indeed Somerset? This morning people can buy a flight from Bristol to Edinburgh for £29.99, but the train journey is £97.20. Individuals in Bristol South are making their contribution towards COP26, but the Government are not making theirs. Reducing air passenger duty and the delays to the Portishead line mean the Government are not helping, and that is something we need to debate.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will continue my disagreeable line, as I disagree with the hon. Lady, too. I sometimes find myself in a surprising degree of agreement with her on local matters but, no, this Government want to keep the cost of living down. We want people to enjoy travelling around our great country. If it is £29.99 to fly from Bristol to Edinburgh or Glasgow, that is great for our constituents, and I hope they enjoy their trip.

Business of the House

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that nothing is too old fashioned for me, and I shall try not to disappoint him in future. I am sorry that his travel arrangements will be inconvenienced, and I mean that genuinely because I appreciate that the situation is difficult for Members who have to come a long way. People must order their priorities accordingly. My personal priority always revolves around the Chamber of the House.

I will point out that a right hon. Friend of mine, whose name I will not give away, will be a long way out of the country on long-planned business and is going to pay a £1,000 of his own money to make sure that he is back for an important parliamentary occasion. Some people take that view of attending for business, and others may indeed wish to start their election campaigns early. That is a choice that they must make. However, Monday and Tuesday are sitting days, and once Mr Speaker has resigned, we must elect a Speaker if the House is sitting. That is completely routine and standard and orderly, and it is important.

I will, if I may, correct the hon. Gentleman on the question of Dissolution, as I was corrected by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The date of Dissolution is set backwards from the date of the election. With the election being on Thursday 12 December, Dissolution has to be on Wednesday at one minute past midnight. It cannot be on any other day. There is no flexibility in the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

I confess, Mr Speaker, that there were conversations about whether we could have finished tomorrow, but for everybody who said to me that we should stop on Thursday, somebody else said that we should stop on Tuesday. There was no clear consensus. It is my view as Leader of the House that my responsibility if there is no consensus is to ensure that things carry on as they were planned to be. It would be wrong for me to force the House in a way that there was not a consensus to go down.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Exactly two years ago, I had an Adjournment debate about airgun safety, which was responded to graciously by the right hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who is in his place. That instigated a review of airgun safety. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson), who is in his place, have pressed the Government persistently for the publication of their review and consultation. Today, I rang my constituent to say again to him and his young son, who was severely injured, that that has not come forward and that we have no idea when it will. Will the Leader of the House please indicate for the families we represent when that important review and consultation will come forward?

I add my support on the need to bring the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill to this House. Front Benchers from all parties have indicated clearly that it will be dealt with very quickly. There is cross-party support and it could be done very quickly next week.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On airgun safety, I will write to the Minister who is responsible to get an answer. There will obviously be no time for a debate on it before this Parliament comes to a conclusion, but it is important that when Members raise questions, they get answers. I cannot always promise people the answer they want, but by and large, it is important that answers are given.

I note the hon. Lady’s point about the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill. It seems that there may be an evolving consensus around that issue in this House.